Amazon has blacklisted the Amanda Milius-directed documentary The Plot Against the President by removing the title from its Prime Video streaming service without explanation.

Consumers are no longer able to digitally rent or purchase The Plot Against the President from the platform.
— Breitbart, 11/22/23

UPDATE

Will all of the recent #RussiaGate revelations released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, many have been once again vindicated after years of being called conspiracy-theory Putin stooges, and even today (again) being called a product of Kremlin fiction.

The Plot Against the President can be viewed below for pertinent review.

Pure arrogance, but based on what?

In September of 1990 when I got a job in the upstart Fox Broadcasting Company (pre-Fox Sports and Fox News), one of the first things I noticed was how some people believed they had to “dumb” things down for their audience. Think about the inflated sense of self it takes to assume you’re smarter than millions of people simply because of where you work.

I experienced that attitude throughout my dozen years in Hollywood and that sense of disdain for those who consume their products resulted in simplistic and insulting programming like “Honey Boo Boo” and almost everything on TLC. Do you really think these people would create demeaning productions of those in their industry or neighborhood? No, but they seek out the easily exploitable so they can laugh at us behind our backs and boost their fragile egos.

In the world of politics, we have an elected class that has no problem lying to our faces. Because of abused Constitutional protection, they believe they’re smarter than the public and they’ll have a portion of the media class that will cover for them. We can easily point to many in city councils, state legislatures, and even on Capitol Hill who clearly aren’t the brightest or emotionally stable our nation has to offer but they managed to get elected with something that’s coveted by all grifters: trust.

Watch any news or opinion show, local and national, and observe the formula they all use. You’ll never watch those shows the same way again.

After their opening monologues, they introduce a guest, start out with an elongated summary of the topic (to assure us all about how much THEY know) and end it in a way the guest has to respond with “I agree with you…”. The host is thereby validated by the invited expert on the topic. This also validates the host’s value to his or her employer.

However their “values” are only as good as the company cutting their check.

We’ve seen many who were once reporting for a conservative network jump to a liberal one and their rock-solid values suddenly dissolve. “Christian conservative” Alisyn Camerota anchored for Fox News before jumping to CNN. Kaitlan Collins blogged for the conservative Daily Caller out of college, became a White House correspondent and now host at liberal CNN. Shepard Smith anchored at Fox News before coming out with “fagitude” and moving to CNBC. That didn’t last long.

Kinda’ makes you wonder what their values really were prior to their change of venue.

Unlike politicians with elections and term limits, media personnel are imposed on the public and their bios are normally concealed by their employers. How they got to their current positions could be embarrassing once revealed. Experience, lack of, nepotism, sexual fast-track; all are at play when it comes to the media ladder.

News and opinion broadcasts are splattered with hosts showing us pictures of their wives, children, moms, dogs, family celebrations, vacations, etc. They’re just like us so we must appreciate them in return.

Oh, and don’t forget to buy their latest new book!

Equally as insidious are the politicians and officials who find those convenient parachutes once they’re forced out of their government jobs and suddenly realize their sweet paychecks have ended.

We have a conservative nonprofit who absorbs newly out-of-work Republicans despite the damage they may have done to the base. Vice President Mike Pence got a “fellowship” with the Heritage Foundation shortly after leaving office. Former Trump border czar Ken Cuccinelli also wound up there until he could get another lucrative gig doing what he did after he was Virginia Attorney General: securing state delegates around the nation AGAINST Donald Trump in 2016. Yes, he’s doing it again now and people like him continue on because they assume we’re all too stupid to notice and donor dollars pay well.

Former politicians and officials get paid “contributor” gigs at CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and broadcast news, no matter why some are no longer employed and compensated by taxpayers (government pensions notwithstanding). Andrew McCabe, John Bolton, Jennifer Palmieri, Marie Harf, Stephen Moore, John Brennan, Kellyanne Conway, William Barr, Alyssa Farah Griffin, Claire McCaskill and Kayleigh McEnany get to blab away uncontested, simply because they’re considered experienced “experts” who can attempt to redirect an ignorant consumer base towards a preferred and approved narrative.

Why do we have such a political and social chasm between men and women voters?

Well, if you have smug media professionals targeting women with intellectually stimulating programming like “The Today Show”, “Good Morning America”, and “The View”, it’s easy to understand why so many see things differently that the rest of the voting blocks. They trust the information is true despite how ridiculous and error-ridden. They specifically look down on their female audience and play to hyper-emotion over substance.

While talk radio is crowded enough with whiners like Dan Bongino, Mark Levin, Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon and other small market wrist-slitters, everyone and his brother now has a podcast. You know, a product some people pay for to use only once. Talk about a racket.

Podcasts are another vehicle for former politicians, celebrity wannabes and pundit types to fortify your trust in them and others who hope to get a more lucrative media job by out-shocking the competition. They serve as the potential bench of future “talent” to be inflicted on the nation simply because of a dubious social media reach.

Why do we have so many “fact checkers”? Again, because almost all media jobs are dependent on consumers trusting THEM. Anything that may cast doubt on what we’re being told or have been told by the overpaid has to be squelched by all means necessary. Media people seldom admit they’re wrong about anything. The Washington Post and New York Times have not given their Pulitzer Prizes back despite their Trump “Russia collusion” coverage being proven bogus. Whenever the media is proven wrong, their contrition seldom matches the initial air horns. Retractions are buried and on-air corrections take up a couple of sentences before the end of the broadcast.

It’s enough to question just how much all of these people, who get paid to share with us their abundant wisdom, really know and really care about us.

There is an on-air persona and an off-air.

Many of these people are truly horrible and genuinely believe we must believe what they say because their lofty salaries depend on it. While they claim to feel the pain their preferred politicians inflict on us, they’re quite comfortable while telling us all is not that bad. They’re the first to agree on the need to start and/or perpetuate a war their prep-schooled children won’t have to participate in. They’re the first to tell us it’s hot in the summer and drinking water is a good idea because they assume we’re that stupid and they’ll save lives. They can afford an electric car as a status symbol to save the planet while their gas range is off limits. They can and will start race violence in the streets (always great video) and go home to a secured, gated community with appropriate protective measures.

They consider themselves of extraordinary value and we should be damn grateful they exist.

And whenever we’re told about something that “the public doesn’t know” (as if we’re expectedly stupid), it’s because those who are lavishly paid declined to inform the American people for whatever partisan objective.

For them to call us “everyday”, “average” or “ordinary”, that translates as we are exploitable, expendable and don’t you forget it.

Don’t get me started on “workers”….

It turns out, NONE of what Schiff, Democrats and their parrot media was true regarding “Russian collusion”, at least when it comes to who was actually doing the colluding.

Current Intel Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has apparently been pushing to prevent the release — perhaps because he for years has claimed he saw “direct evidence” of Trump-Russia collusion that neither the FBI nor even Mueller’s endless probe ever found. It seems that none of the 53 witnesses interviewed by the committee — including Obama officials Jim Clapper, Loretta Lynch, Sam Power, Susan Rice, Sally Yates and Andrew McCabe — said they’d seen any evidence of collusion.

Indeed, it looks like the only “evidence” the FBI ever had was the hearsay claims (which various Russians were paid to make) in the opposition-research dossier that Hillary Clinton’s campaign commissioned — a fact that the FBI and Justice Department concealed from the courts even as it was the only basis for their wiretap requests.
— New York Post, 5/7/20

As U.S. Attorney John Durham wraps up his investigation, hopefully we’ll find out who ALL the players were in this coup d’etat that was nearly pulled off and holds them responsible for all of the collateral damage done.

Folks, we lost the House of Representatives because of this. We lost two years, 2-1/2 years of an agenda being implemented. Who knows what other damage resulted to this country because of this, and half of the country — statistically half of the country — was believing every word of this. We had news organizations winning Pulitzer Prizes for their reporting on this.

Remember, they spent years reporting this four and five times a day every day, seven days a week for two years. New York Times, Washington Post, Times, CNN, MSNBC. And the whole time they knew it was all a lie. They knew there was nothing to it. It was entirely made up, and the plot hatched in the Obama Oval Office.
— Rush Limbaugh, 5/8/20

Adam Schiff should be removed from office, if not in handcuffs and people need to go jail so this never happens to another American ever again.

Projection is a basic, self-protective defense, and a process which affects how people understand one another. When we project, we “put” part of ourselves onto other people, usually to “get rid of” something objectionable. It is as if we are throwing a part of ourselves outward and casting it, like the image from a movie projector, onto (really, into) the other person. It often plays out in relationship dysfunction, as the defensive activity bounces back and forth between us over time, operating beneath the radar without being addressed.
— Psychology Today, 9/9/18

Granted, the second grade “I know you are but what am I?” taunt may be appropriately descriptive of the left, the proof of their projection is all around us. They call the right violent while they routinely disrupt, riot in the street, assault counter protesters, shoot at Republican politicians and staff, leaving varying amounts of public and private property damage in their wake. They ridicule the right for not having enough “college-educated” voters while listening to those calling in on the CSPAN Washington Journal “Democrat’s line” is an exercise in frustration, listening to arrogant liberals reciting talking points proven inaccurate or just boldfaced lies weeks, if not years ago.

The left’s introduction of false narratives occur on an almost daily basis and sometimes the target of those narratives has to counter within minutes of the partisan lies as they break. For example….

The acting director of national intelligence threatened to resign over concerns that the White House might attempt to force him to stonewall Congress when he testifies Thursday about an explosive whistleblower complaint about the president, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
— Washington Post, 9/25/19

It took literal minutes for this story, responded to by President Trump during a press conference with the Ukrainian president, to be forcefully and publicly debunked by the subject himself.

The acting U.S. intelligence director denied reports Wednesday that he threatened to resign if the Trump administration tried to stop him from testifying freely before Congress on Thursday.

Joseph Maguire, acting director of National Intelligence, vowed to step down if he was not allowed to appear before Congress, a source familiar with the matter told NBC News. The Washington Post first reported Maguire’s threatened resignation, citing current and former U.S. officials.
— CNBC, 9/25/19

In just the latest example of journalistic malpractice, citing unnamed “current and former U.S. officials” revealed yet again the perils of quotes being introduced into the public debate; “officials” who may or may not even exist but as long as it’s published in the media, “sources” are protected, real or imagined and the Democrat base has another tidbit to recite ad nauseam.

With that, it’s easy to understand why liberal Democrats are STILL repeating the Mueller Report-debunked “Russia collusion” hoax, while any Democrat within earshot of a microphone repeats that “foreign election interference, “threat to our democracy” jingle. It’s also easy to see why they and especially their media so hate President Trump. He’s challenged them, their power to influence, and especially their integrity.

But what’s most laughable is even though Democrats and their allies depend on the ability of their base to recite anything issued, that same base is being told that conservatives and Republicans are the dumb tools.

I also don’t think that hyperbole would be overstating it to say that some Democrats just think that the president’s base is too dumb to know the difference, that they wouldn’t get — even if all of the evidence pointed toward impeachment, pointed toward this being someone who needed to be removed, that the president has fooled enough people, that they are so gullible, that they will not vote against him no matter what. That’s the vibe I get from some Democrats — that this whole thing is a waste of time, because “those people” are going to pick him no matter what.
— NPR “1A” podcast, 9/25/19

That explains why so many on the left believe the “deplorable” base of President Trump’s base can’t be depended on to abandon him on Election Day 2020, and seeing how they still haven’t been adequately punished for voting against Hillary Clinton in 2016, removing him from power now may be the only way to stop those “too dumb” from voting for him again.

But the left’s ability to consume without verification becomes equally problematic when, for example, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee ad libs an interpretation of a phone transcript between Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump; an interpretation of Trump’s words that will be recited verbatim as often as those who still, to this day, believe Sarah Palin said “I can see Russia from my house!”

We’ve been very good to your country. Very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what, I don’t see much reciprocity here. You know what I mean? I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of dirt, on this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, and not just any people. I’m going to put you in touch with the Attorney General of the United States — my Attorney General, Bill Barr — he’s got the whole weight of American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy, you’re going to love him. Trust me. You know what I’m asking, so I’m only going to say this a few more times, in a few more ways. And don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.
— Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), 9/26/19

It’s truly sad knowing how many are going to confidently quote and be motivated by Schiff’s attempt at parody.

Having to engage in political dialogue with the arrogant is bad enough. Add incorrect to arrogant and you have a pending exercise in futility on your hands, but then again, that’s probably how the political left wants it.

That headline should be THE example of Democrat projection since November 2016.

Because when the next few investigations into the Clinton Foundation, FISA abuse, and anything John Durham sprinkles on top are completed and reports are released, the left will need to depend on their base projectors. The Democrats will employ the “deny, delay, destroy” strategy perfected by Bill and Hillary during the last impeachment saga, and those three D’s were left simple enough for a reason.

“I think you might want to listen, there isn’t anything wrong with listening,” Trump continued. “If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent’ — oh, I think I’d want to hear it.”
— ABC News, 6/13/19

While President Trump specifically told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos that he might take info from a country like “Norway”, the media has concluded he’d take damaging information on a political rival from… RUSSIA?

New York Times: Trump Says ‘I’d Take It’ if Russia Again Offered Dirt on Opponent
Washington Post: Trump just invited another Russian attack.

As has been stated by people not in the professional media on many occasions, “collusion” is NOT a crime. Obtaining political dirt on a political opponent, let alone the from a foreign government like Russia is NOT a crime but it didn’t take long for Democrats to cry foul.

More than a dozen 2020 Democratic presidential candidates rebuked President Donald Trump on Wednesday night after he said he would consider taking information on his political challengers from a foreign government. Many renewed calls for impeachment, further raising the profile of a highly charged and divisive cause, while also voicing new concerns about the security of American elections.
— Washington Post, 6/13/19

But can any of them explain the actions of House Intelligence Chair Representative Adam Schiff who essentially did just that in 2017?

Granted, Schiff was suckered by Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexey Stolyarov, two Russian pranksters known as Vovan and Lexus, and Schiff later claimed he knew he was being punk’d and was just playing along.

A spokesman for Schiff said, “Before agreeing to take the call, and immediately following it, the committee informed appropriate law-enforcement and security personnel of the conversation, and of our belief that it was probably bogus.”
— The Atlantic, January/February 2018

That kinda’ defies common sense when you consider how valuable his time should be and how long he played along.

Kuznetsov and Stolyarov immediately sent the recording to Kremlin-friendly media, which gleefully made hay of it: another dumb American, ready to believe the most-ludicrous stories about a Russia run by sneaky, evil spies. Any Russian listening to the tape would have instantly recognized how silly the conversation was.

Aside from the “dumb American”, Schiff sounded all too eager to accept any and all opposition research damaging to Donald Trump and relished in the opportunity. Think about it: he clearly warned “Andriy Parubiy, the speaker of the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament” that others may be listening; something he wouldn’t have said if he was goading someone possibly nefarious, and if Adam really believed the call was “bogus”, he’d have a staffer take the information, not the congressman himself for precisely the reasons the recording illustrates.

Or maybe Adam Schiff IS that dumb…?

It would be interesting to read the report sent (if it even was) to “appropriate law enforcement and security personnel” considering there was never any major coverage of this attempt to give a committee chairman compromising information on the President of the United States or followup.

If Donald Trump is to be criticized for saying he might take information from a foreign source, shouldn’t Adam Schiff be made to answer for his clear and willing acceptance of political dirt?

h/t Laura Parks

On April 10, 2017, an assistant to Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Donald Trump’s campaign for possible collusion with the Kremlin, patched in a long-planned call from Andriy Parubiy, the speaker of the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament. Parubiy said he had some potentially explosive information about Trump’s visit to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant in 2013.

It wasn’t Parubiy who’d called. It was Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexey Stolyarov, two Russian pranksters known as Vovan and Lexus. There was no kompromat, no meetings between Flynn and a Russian pop star in Brighton Beach. The call made the Americans look gullible, which suited the callers. Kuznetsov and Stolyarov immediately sent the recording to Kremlin-friendly media, which gleefully made hay of it: another dumb American, ready to believe the most-ludicrous stories about a Russia run by sneaky, evil spies.
— The Atlantic, Jan/Feb 2018

So much for “house intelligence”.